Mr. Speaker, the government fully understands the role that this government and other governments can play in ensuring that Canada's children have that very important first start.

In the Speech from the Throne, we identified a number of initiatives that we will undertake, not the least of which is a doubling of parental leave benefits. We understand there are tax measures that have to be incorporated, as well as the creative development of the national child benefit with the provinces. We want to work with the provinces to focus specifically on the early years for children. We will do that.

Mr. Speaker, although the EgyptAir tragedy is only a little more than 36 hours old, already there is speculation about the kapton wiring in the plane which was also indicated as a possible cause in both the Swissair and TWA crashes.

Can the transport minister indicate what efforts are being made through his department to study the wiring insulation issue to ensure the safety of passengers flying on Canadian carriers?

Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of all members of the House in extending sympathy to the families of those people who were killed in this very tragic accident.

There is a lot of speculation about the causes of the accident. As we have seen in the Swissair crash and the TWA crash, one should not speculate prematurely. These investigations take a long time.

With respect to the issue of kapton wiring, it is in many Canadian planes. We are working with the FAA in the United States to ensure that this particular wiring is installed properly and is maintained properly. As far as we are concerned, there is no danger to the flying public in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday in this House I outlined as clearly as possible the official opposition's support for agricultural assistance to farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I am surprised the Deputy Prime Minister did not hear that. It was his leader who has not shown up in this House for six years on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the agriculture minister is really simple. The minister says this House has allocated $900 million to help farmers. Less than $300 million of that has gone through the pipe. What is he going to do to get the other $600 million into the arms of those farmers this member represents?

The administration is processing accounts every day. Over 50% of the applications did not come in until the last three weeks. We extended the date for applications in order to get that. There are cheques going out to farmers every day. They will continue to go out very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, on the very same day that those premiers and farmers were here in Ottawa looking for at least the $600 million that this minister promised, the federal government gave away $3.6 billion in pay equity to settle a bungle in that area.

I ask the agriculture minister, would the premiers and farmers have gotten further if they had come here and asked for equal pay for wheat of equal value?

Canadians want tax cuts, but not just any kind of tax cuts. A recent poll by his friends at Earnscliffe confirms what the NDP has been saying all along, namely that 55% of the people back a rollback on the GST as a first step toward cutting taxes.

When will the Minister of Finance finally catch up with the Canadian people and roll back the GST, which is the most regressive and difficult tax in the history of this country?

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the government would like to cut taxes in every area and as quickly as possible, but clearly one has to establish priorities. If we take a look, in fact our consumption taxes in Canada are substantially lower than in most other countries, whereas our personal income taxes are higher. That is essentially where the priority ought to lie.

The fact is that we have made it very clear that the priority is to cut personal income taxes for middle income and low income Canadians. Indeed, if he takes a look at what we have done over the course of the last three years, that is exactly where the priorities have been and that is where they ought to be.

Mr. Speaker, when the current Prime Minister was the finance minister back in 1976 he said that 16% increases in spending reflected great restraint on new expenditures. The Prime Minister must be absolutely thrilled to see $47 billion being planned by the Department of Finance and other departments in new Liberal spending.

Are the tax and cut Liberals of the 1990s going back to the tax and spending Liberals of the 1970s?

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to work well together, so we want to be gentle today.

The fact is that when we took office total spending was $120 billion. Under the Tories it was going to go to $128 billion. It is now down to $112 billion. We have done that by focusing on the priorities of Canadians. Three-quarters of all our new spending is in health care and education. We will continue to focus on those priorities.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have done it by swallowing themselves whole on the GST, as we learned here earlier today.

The fact is that Canadians have paid the price to balance the books, not this government. Before the government takes a walk down memory lane to the high spending 1970s, before the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance fuddle duddle with the surplus, why do we not give Canadians the tax break they need right now, reward them for the sacrifices they have made and give them some money back to put into their pockets?

Stéphane DionLiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, if Quebecers want a clear question and if they are saying that the question asked in 1995 was not clear, it means that they have a sense of logic.

If Quebecers are saying that 50% plus one is not enough to bring about such a major change, it means they have a sense of responsibility.

If Quebecers are saying that aboriginal peoples must not be transferred from one country to another without at least being consulted, it means they have a sense of justice.

And if Quebecers are saying that secession must not be attempted unilaterally, but must be preceded by a duly negotiated agreement, it means they have a sense of the rule of law and of democracy for all.

Mr. Speaker, there is another part of the country that wants a clear question. The government says there is no appetite in the country for Senate reform. Right now Alberta is preparing a referendum on electing its senators. It is going to ask a clear question. It is going to get a clear majority.

Will this referendum issue and the supreme court reference work for Alberta as well?